Sergio Belkin wrote:
Even so, thanks for your comments, I'd like more experiences about
monitoring systems. Again of topic, I want to avoid Nagios because it
looks like over complex but if someone has an actual experience
demostrating the opposite, I'd be glad to hear.
Thanks in advance
We've used Nagios very successfully. We have hundreds of hosts and well
over a thousand checks, so I'm guessing that we're probably a medium-ish
installation. The use of templating makes adding hosts and services
quick and painless. We've evaluated some of the other options already
mentioned here: zabbix, opennms, zenoss, even mon, and big-brother and
friends, and have always decided that nagios is the best product for our
needs, as far as system monitoring goes. The initial learning curve is
about medium compared to some, and once you've gotten over that hump,
there just don't seem to be others. I've recommended Nagios to a few
less-than-seasoned sysadmins who were able to take the templating
concept and run with it. We have also setup cacti for the snmp
statistics keeping. Nagios does have performance data capabilities now,
they feel sort of tacked on to me. The folks over at
http://www.centreon.com/ are working on an integrated user interface
that includes statistics keeping using Nagios as the monitoring engine
which looks as though there may be some promise, if I was starting over
I'd definitely evaluate that.
I hope this is of some help in your review process.
Sincerely,
Jacob Leaver
Sr. Systems Administrator
ReachONE Internet
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
